|
|
 |
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Grand Slam? Hardly
Before the issue becomes all the rage next week at Augusta, let's get one thing straight right now: If Tiger Woods wins the Masters, it will not complete the Grand Slam. A victory would be many wonderful things. Woods would hold all four professional majors at once, something no one else has ever done. A victory, added to his U.S. Open and British Open blowouts and his cliffhanger heroics at the PGA, would put an exclamation point on the highest sustained level of play ever seen in the majors. It would push Woods farther ahead of Jack Nicklaus' career majors pace, giving him six professional majors and nine total at 25 years old, four months, to Nicklaus' four pro majors and six total at the same age. But it would not be the Grand Slam. It's simple, really. A Grand Slam has to happen within the same calendar year, not any arbitrary 365-day period. When Martina Navratilova won the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1984, she put in a public claim for the Grand Slam after she captured the 1985 Australian. It was denied. For all I know, George Brett hit .420 from May 1980 to May 1981. Or perhaps Dan Marino threw 50 touchdown passes from November 1984 to November 1985. None of those feats are recognized because they didn't happen in the same season. The same principle applies to golf's Grand Slam. What made Bobby Jones' 1930 season (when he won the British Amateur, the British Open, the U.S. Open and the U.S. Amateur) so magical was the symmetry, mounting pressure and impossibly narrow parameters of the so-called Impregnable Quadrilateral. Because the task was clear and the time frame fixed, his accomplishments played out like a drama on the world stage, with a definite beginning, middle and climactic end. Jones' play transfixed the nation when golf was a blip on the radar screen, which is why many consider his the greatest feat in the history of the sport. (Personally, I go with Byron Nelson's 11 straight victories in 1945.) In the real Grand Slam, if you don't win the first major of the year, there is no carryover. That's why Nicklaus, who revered Jones, would get so depressed when he didn't win the Masters. He'd lost his chance at a Grand Slam for a entire 12 months. Nicklaus, by the way, is the only other golfer to have a chance to hold all four titles simultaneously. Nicklaus won the 1971 PGA, then the 1972 Masters and '72 U.S. Open. The catch is that the 1971 PGA was held in February because it was played in Florida, so at the 1972 British Open Nicklaus was not going for four straight majors. Still, there was not a peep before or during that British, where Nicklaus placed second, about a victory completing a Grand Slam. And Nicklaus, who is such a big fan of Woods that he actually roots for the younger man to break his records, emphatically rejects the idea that Woods winning next week would constitute a Grand Slam. That's why I'm surprised Woods persists in saying that, to him, a victory at Augusta will be a Grand Slam. No one appreciates history better than Woods -- the entire projected arc of his career is built on breaking golf's most important records. The truth is that if he does win next week, there will be mixed reaction to what it means. Some might agree with him and consider it a Grand Slam, but most won't and the debate will continue. Then, if he does go on to win the real Grand Slam sometime in the future (and I think at some point in the next several years he will), the controversy over whether the 2001 Masters did or didn't complete a Grand Slam will take some of the luster off an incredible accomplishment. Woods is too good to need to back into any records. If he wins next week, he should proudly claim it as what it is -- four straight majors -- but not as the Grand Slam. He'll probably be angry at those who disagree with his current opinion, but based on his ultra-competitive makeup, that will probably work in his favor. It'll make him even more determined to win all four majors this year. Mailbag What exactly is meant by someone being "a great ballstriker"? Can you be a good ballstriker but an average golfer?
To a pro, a good ballstriker is a player who on full shots consistently hits the ball solidly, can curve the ball either way and at varying heights, and, above all, has control of where it ends up. By definition, a good ballstriker hits a lot of fairways and a lot of greens in regulation. Good ballstrikers tend to do better in windy conditions or on difficult golf courses, and tend to like U.S. Open setups where ball control off the tee and from the fairway are at a premium. Under this definition, Ben Hogan and Lee Trevino are widely considered the best ballstrikers in history. Very often, the term can be code for someone who is not a particularly good putter. For example, Nick Price, Vijay Singh and Hal Sutton are often called good ballstrikers, not only because they are, but also because they are not gifted on the greens. Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods are also great ballstrikers, but because both, at the tops of their games, were good throughout the bag, they are more often referred to as great players. As to whether a good ballstriker can be an average pro, the answer is yes. There are a bunch of guys who hit it beautifully but don't get the ball in the hole well enough to be among the top players. Until this year, a perfect example was Joe Durant. Conversely, there have been plenty of top players who aren't good ballstrikers. The best examples I can think of are Dave Stockton and Brad Faxon, both of whom have genius short games. Overall, though, it's hard to be successful without being a good ballstriker. Look at Seve Ballesteros, who can do anything around the green but hits his full shots everywhere. That's why tour pros spend so much time on the practice tee with their swing coaches. In recent years a growing number of commentators have suggested that there should be two sets of equipment rules, one for pros and, presumably, one for amateurs. In your last column you apparently endorsed this suggestion. I hope you will consider carefully the implications of this argument. As a low-handicap amateur who plays in local and state-level events, I am very interested in comparing my game to that of the pros, including local ones. I can agree that improvements in equipment have their place. At the present time, however, influential golf writers such as yourself should focus on the ways in which manufacturers and increasingly powerful market forces are undermining the integrity of golf.
I understand your concern. I don't think there should be any split in the rules between pros and amateurs. I think the line of demarcation should be between all players who play in scratch events and everybody else (who constitute about 99 percent of golfers). Under those guidelines, you would still be playing the same equipment as the pros. As for the integrity of golf, it's endured even though the great majority of golfers unintentionally or intentionally break the game's written rules every time they play. What is a good workout regime for the average Joe to complement an 8-handicap? What muscle groups do the PGA guys work on to help their strength and stamina?
With my Coke-bottle shape, I shouldn't be giving advice on this subject, but I'll pass along what I've heard. In general, today's tour pros want, above all, to have reasonable aerobic fitness so they can sustain concentration late in rounds. They also want to be strong in the trunk area, both to rotate quickly through the ball and to prevent back injuries. I think there is a rethinking of what is the correct type of weight training for golfers. Pros are being more cautious about getting strong in the shoulders, chest and arms like Woods, who possesses exceptional flexibility. Players don't want to be restricted in their turns, they don't want shoulder injuries and they don't want to lose touch. So whereas the cut David Duval looked like he was setting the trend, the softer but still strong body of Ernie Els might be a better golf model. For an 8-handicapper, I think running to strengthen the legs and doing proper abdominal work are probably the best and safest things you can do. I've heard that crunches aren't as effective for golfers as rotational exercises that work the internal and external obliques. If you want to pursue weight training, I'd recommend getting direction from a personal trainer who has worked with golfers. When I read your article about the golf equipment you have, you said your most prized irons were the LT Grind Spaldings; I just traded for the very same set. I have been trying to gather more information about these without much success and was wondering if you can tell me more.
The clubs were made in 1990, and a guy from Spalding told me there were probably fewer than a couple hundred sets made. I have never seen a set other than my own. I picked mine up in Honolulu at a golf shop called A Piece of Time that specializes in vintage clubs. I bought the clubs because they looked great, because I've always been a huge Trevino fan, and because the owner was willing to trade me straight up for my set of 1981 Top Flites. Trevino loves to work on his clubs, much like Arnold Palmer, and when I showed them to him during a pro-am he hefted them and said, "Yeah, these were beauties." In fact, he won seven Senior tour events in 1990. His caddie, Ralph Hackett, calls me "the guy with that great set of clubs." Sports Illustrated senior writer Jaime Diaz is a regular contributor to the magazine's Golf Plus edition. Click here to send him a question or comment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
